«12. . .3,5533,5543,5553,5563,5573,5583,559. . .3,6073,608»
So. Thoughts on Liberland?
Unless it becomes highly successful, I am not sure about leaving my home to live in a war zone. In Europe. Hell, id be surprised if a working economy can be created within a 7x7 area. If Liberlanders are serious, they should buy land from the neighbors.
What war zone?
Money is not the best motivator. But in any case, I addressed this.
What employers in the developed world do not pay enough for basic needs? The fast food industry? What skills do they have? How many people can replace then with no training? How about machines?
Workplace death and injury, the reduced morale, wrongful death suits and so on, are not desirable.
Child labor was a necessity. Families relied on their children's income for survival. It is because of the industrial revolution and the productivity and income gains from it, that we no longer need it.
Direct democracy, or even government is not necessary for such laws.
Fast food is just one of the many industries paying poor wages. Grocery store workers, daycare workers, and ambulance drivers are among the lowest paid occupations in the U.S. You could replace some of them with machines, but doing so would further put a strain on the lower class, which by the theory of Capitalist economics, hurts the economy because there are less consumers.
There would be no such thing as reparations for workers in case of death or injury if it weren't for some form of government regulation. If there was no government and a person wanted reparations for an injury or death of someone working for a corporation, what's to stop them from saying no?
Child labor wouldn't have been necessary nor would poverty have been so prevalent if the managers and corporate heads had just given out fair wages in the first place. You had people making a dollar or less a day while men like Rockefeller had a billion.
One could argue that a group of citizens banding together to do anything is a government unto itself, but that's going into semantics. While true any government type could go in and fix a problem like that, direct democracy ensures the primary group who makes the decision is the people.
How hard is it to stock shelves? You are demanding capitalists pay more than the productivity of the employees.
You don't need a government to have laws. You don't need a government to enforce laws. You don't need government.
Get real. Child labor was always necessary, and is still necessary in a large portion of the world. It is a blink of an eye in the timeline of human history and a small portion of the world when and where child labor was not necessary.
And they make dumb decisions. How many times do I have to say that what I do in the privacy of my home is no more the business of my neighbors than it is of the state?
Direct democracy has banned same sex marriage in multiple states, recreational and medicinal marijuana use in some states, and even minarets in Switzerland.
None of those bans are justified.
The "war" zone, or at least disputed territories that occupy parts of the Croatian-Serbian border.
There is no war zone. This territory is unclaimed by Croatia or Serbia.
Claimed by Liberland, now.
It's not hard to stock shelves, but it is unfair that it is the only choice of many people and it isn't providing enough of an income to survive on. But as I said, a corporation wouldn't have to raise its wages if there was a government alternative.
A government provides unity for people to work together to provide people with complex things like clean water and electricity. If people could work together as effectively without an overshadowing government and not become corrupt and force others to give them more than they deserve, I would be whole supporting of that, but I do not feel that if all governments dissolved tomorrow, people would work together. A transition into anarchism must be carefully planned to be successful.
I don't share in your beliefs on child labor, but that aside, there were a lot of injuries and deaths of children and adult workers which could have easily been avoided with simple safety measures, but they weren't because the capitalists were too greedy to put any money into the good of their workers. I believe they would be doing the same if unions and socialists hadn't forced them to stop.
True, but these sorts of decisions could easily be stopped if a government just said no. I'm for the expansion of democracy and more referendums, but there should be a line outlining basic things which cannot be altered, like what the U.S. Bill of Rights does.
TotD
Libertarians often fall too deep into the same line of thinking used by conservatives and some liberals, i.e. that because people can't get a job, it's ultimately because they are lazy. The actual reason may be that the minimum wage is too high or fair work acts are creating the scarcity. They are victims of the government's over regulating authority, more or less, and the free market has nothing to do with it when we aren't in a free market.
How is it unfair? What government alternative and how would it raise wages?
Total nonsense. James McCosh has already talked about mutual aid societies of the past. The 2011 Queensland flood recovery was started completely privately, by volunteers.
And you have the audacity to claim these groups would become corrupt, while openly calling for more of the most corrupt organizations on the planet?
These are not beliefs. These are facts. The unions didn't do anything. Europe was far more unionised than the US, yet the US went to an 8 hour workday well before Europe. Why? Productivity gains.
The Bill of Rights is meaningless.
Meaningless in what sense?
It is unfair that a human being in modern society may have to starve to death because there just so happens to be no other option for them. I was mentioning state-run corporations that I had talked about before.
If there were no governments, corporations and mutual aid societies would become governments in on themselves because, as James McCosh mentioned, governments are really no more than overblown versions of both. I worry about corporate corruption in an anarchist society because at the very least governments have to meet a certain standard of treatment to its citizens in order to continue to exist. If governments weren't there to stop private corporations from simply up and killing their competition to gain a monopoly, who would?
I don't know where you heard that. 8-hour workdays didn't become commonplace until 1937, with the Fair Labor Standards Act, though a few other industries had adopted it earlier. 8-hour workdays were instituted in 1884 in Britain, 1917 in Russia (by the Soviets, unsurprisingly), and 1919 in pre-Franco Spain.
I disagree, but that is simply an opinion. I feel like we're really getting nowhere with this argument, I'm willing to call it quits if you are. It all boils down to opinion, and neither of us know who's right because, unless there is some country at some point which you feel perfectly outlines your views, there hasn't been a country to see if either-or works in a real government.
so let's get this straight:
>corporations/other sh!t would become government
>corporate corruption would be bad
>gov'ts have to meet min standards to exist
>but corporations wouldn't
>but corporations would be government
>so corporations WOULD have to meet minimum standards?
wol;gnvre;gnvakre;ngvker;angv;karlenglkrneagvlkergrkel;gv
I was pointing to the fact that the idea that a society could be an anarchy but still have corporations as we do today would be impossible. Corporations could shape up to serve the interests of the people, and if they didn't, people would eventually overthrow them and replace their leadership with someone who would, but then they'd just be like the governments of today, so what'd be the point of getting rid of the governments we have now if we'd just return to that state anyway?
better government marketing departments
age of consent in LFL is 11 and statutory rape is decriminalized
I agree with your other comments - but the Bill of Rights is not meaningless.
The Bill of Rights is a classic statement of Classical Liberal belief - although, it could be argued, the rights are in the wrong order.
The Ninth Amendment (that rights do not come from government - but are from natural law) should be the First Amendment.
And the Tenth Amendment (that powers not given to the Federal government are reserved to the States and to the people themselves) should be the Second Amendment.
One should set the basic philosophical background, before one goes into specific things such as the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms.
The real problem with the Bill of Rights is GOVERNMENT APPOINTED JUDGES.
The rights of the people should be judged by the people - by randomly selected JURIES.
Mutual aid (Friendly Societies, Fraternities and so on) are nothing like government - the state is based on FORCE and FEAR, not voluntary cooperation.
As for "government corporations" - it is astonishing, utterly astonishing, that some people are still defending government owned enterprises. They would not reduce poverty - they would increase it. They would cause economic damage (both in paying their losses and by their general incompetence) - they are not an "alternative", government corporations are Black Holes.
As for "Corporate Corruption" - well then get rid of government "licensing" and so on, as such regulations are naturally used by business enterprises with political connections to undermine business enterprises without political connections.
This is often expressed as "big business" using government to hit "small business" - but it is more complicated than that.
Sometimes the victims of cooperation between business enterprises and government can be large business enterprises.
If a "capitalist" does not watch his back in relation to new regulations (if he just concentrates on giving his customers the best products and the lowest prices) and government is powerful, he will find that he has been knifed. So even a businessman who does not want to get involved in politics has to - has to employ the lobbyists and so on.
The way to deal with this is not to give the government more power over "competition policy" and so on - on the contrary that it is the way the corruption gets in.
GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT.
Agreed.
I would not be so worried about having government corporations if it weren't for the fact that people couldn't get by with what regular corporations offer. I agree, however, that such things as licensing should be done away with, except perhaps some copyright laws and such which if totally repealed could hurt the entertainment industry. While personally I have less sympathy for large corporations being taken apart since I'd prefer a local, small businesses over large corporate conglomerates, I do think it is in the best interests of individuals that licensing is generally removed, or otherwise not enforceable as it is now. I think the government's presence in economics should really only be limited to taxing. Through progressive taxes on the rich and lower ones on the poor, it possibly lowers poverty for individual people and makes things such as minimum wage less urgent.
My primary problem with mutual aid societies is that the system could be turned around to hurt consumers and workers. Take this for example, a group of CEOs of different corporations in a community got together and decided that they all were going to lower worker's pay and make poor products to maximize profits for themselves. To help keep the system going, they would in exchange promote each other's product, and denounce other competitors that weren't in the deal. With a government, this wouldn't extend beyond an advertising war, and eventually someone could come along and prove that they were the superior corporation with better products and better pay, and overcome these other corrupt ones. In the absence of a government though, these corporations could enforce their rules they've made, possibly physically attacking other businesses. Nobody but individuals could possibly stop them, and while they may eventually be overcome through armed struggle if they were so determined, more would likely pop up in their place and do the same thing, and the cycle would continue. Overall, it would be easier solved with a government in power to ensure that these CEOs don't start picking off businesses through force.
(late, but haven't been online b/c finals)
Holy sh!t Bernie Sanders is running for president. I'm not aboard the Hilldog train at this point, but 2016 is looking like a "worst of all worlds" possibility.
I might ignore the next election. Exerting any energy and stress over it seems counterproductive.
In other news, despite retaining minarchism and Nozick's critique of anarchy, I am becoming more accepting of direct action, agorism, secessionism, and other means to achieving liberty. Also I am cynical as hell.
Really, the whole debate between minarchism and anarchism is irrelevant to the goal: more liberty.
«12. . .3,5533,5543,5553,5563,5573,5583,559. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
